Sunday, November 9, 2008
Can you picture me... standing there... I see it now. My. Whole. Life.
What would you die for? I know a few things. Shall I care to mention them? No. Of course not. Shall anyone read this? Why of course not! I like the thought of posting a blog no-one will ever read. Its like the electronic way of talking to yourself.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
From now on I shall pretend to use big words to explain my dissatisfaction with things.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Thursday, March 8, 2007
"I was thinking of compiling a list that shows just how contradictory the 9/11 conspiracy is. Everything in the list should be something that is supported by 9/11 CTists."
#. Conspiracy claim.
Contradiction/Inconsistency/Contradicting CTer claim
1. A missile hit the Pentagon. Light poles were plucked out of the ground close to the Pentagon.
For these two statements to be true: Prior to striking the Pentagon, the missile pinballed off 5 different light poles without detonating.
2. A missile hit the Pentagon. There was a small amount of airplane debris found on the yard of the Pentagon.
For these two statements to be true: milliseconds after the Pentagon was struck, lightning-quick, possibly invisible gnomes ran around the yard and dispersed random chunks of airplane wreckage.
3. Damning evidence of there being charges inside the towers is the numerous reports of explosions.
Inconsistency: no such claim is made about WTC 7.
4. NORAD stood down and didn't intercept any of the hijacked jets.
"Flight 93 was shot down."
5. NORAD stood down.
"NORAD had numerous test missions scheduled for that day."
6. The towers fell neatly within their own footprints.
The south tower ejected just enough material to minorly damage WTC7 and justify it's controlled demolition.
7. Damning evidence of there being charges inside the towers is the numerous reports of explosions. Thermite/ate reactions were used to weaken the steel beams, as confirmed by Steven Jones.
Thermite/ate is not an explosive and does not sound like one.
8. Rumsfeld/Willie Brown/Pentagon officials stopped flying commercially before 9/11
Surely Rumsfeld would know which flights were sceduled to be hijacked and would not book a ticket on them. They would know no flights out of San Francisco were part of the operation.
9. The janitor in the basement of the WTC reported explosions (attributed to a bomb) in the basement of the building.
The buildings were destroyed top-down; why bother planting 'extra' explosives that would not have been needed to bring down the towers?
10. 9/11 enabled the US to invade Afghanistan so they could build a pipeline. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are puppets of the CIA/ISI.
Why do you need to invade land that is totally controlled by your puppets?
Friday, March 2, 2007
So my question is: why haven't the witnesses that heard explosions, or didn't properly see a plane near the pentagon been killed?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
BBC has done a great job debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theory. Here are the videos parts 1 through 7
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vR3aNMLkahc - Part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uQ1kSE74hmU - Part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pml4pTnhEC4 - Part 3
http://youtube.com/watch?v=N_Zt7G3hKpU - Part 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BX0AIyycLKc - Part 5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FianbvnWILk - Part 6
http://youtube.com/watch?v=g_dDxdqc_Qo - Part 7
Tell me, why can truthers trust the BBC article which mistakenly said that the hijackers were still alive, yet they can't trust this?
Deniers want mainstream media coverage until it turns around and bites them in the ass.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Saturday, February 10, 2007
- Why did this mega-smart/mega-dumb conspirators not pull the building at 3pm? Surely waiting until 5.32pm would be far more suspicious.*
- How did the mega-smart/mega-dumb conspirators know that part of the WTC1&2 would fall on WTC7? They couldn't just demolish it without it having sustained some structural damage or it would be obvious that they demolished it!
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
The reason is due to how Flight 175 hit the South Tower. Flight 11 hit the North Tower roughly quite central, whereas Flight 175 hit the corner, and lower down on the South Tower. This resulted in more pressure on the upper floors of the South Tower, and thus the collapse came before the North Tower.
For a full, and probably a more easier was to understand this, check out Screw 9/11 Mysteries.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Is this censorship? No. Why? Because he didn't ask it to be pulled, he just asked for it to be placed in context, a disclaimer or something. But thankfully the Irish TV was smart enough to pull Loose Facts from the nations eyes. Besides, its free online anyway.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
- Some, not all, CT'ers claim that the firefighters, NYPD, FEMA and other Government agencies were paid off to shut up about 9/11 - but would that not create some overnight millionaires? Friends of these people would obviously notice this, and then would they need to be paid off to keep quiet about finding out - and would their friends need to be paid off? Its an endless stream.
- Regarding no planes at WTC... Besides the hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw a plane and saw it hit the tower - why would the Government risk not flying a plane into the tower? Especially the second tower, because it was being filmed by many news outlets/people on the street.
- Pentagon plane... again why not just fly a plane into the pentagon? If it hits the lawn - no big deal! Oh, and the lightpoles... if a missle hit the Pentagon, why did the lightpoles come out? No evidence of explosives used.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
BitTorrent - High Quality
Google Video - Stream
I recommend viewing from Google Video and setting the size to "Fit To Window". Text is hard to read due to Google Resize.
Thanks to the Doc for this.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
I love 28th's take on the news, that they only show bad stuff to keep the population afraid.
I can imagine his version of the news:
PRESENTER1: Tonight on 6 NEWS: Three million motorists safely complete their journeys. We have an interview exclusive.
PRESENTER2: Meanwhile, Mayor Stevens continues to be a fair and reasonable leader of the city. We find out why.
PRESENTER1: We go live to Albert Memorial Park, where nothing much is happening.
PRESENTER2: And law enforcement correspondant Janet Dayes gives her summary of a quiet uneventful day with the boys in blue.
PRESENTER1: Meanwhile in International News, The United Kingdom sets a new record with its 940th straight year without being invaded.
PRESENTER2: And the World Health Organisation raises concerns that the price of panadol in the Middle East is rising at 1% higher rate than local inflation rates.
Yeah, that would be exciting news... everyone would watch that.
Thats definetly being added to my list of "Best Debunker Quotes", thanks Gumboot :D
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
The FBI made it public that there was no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. CTers use this as some form of 'proof' that he wasn't involved.
This works AGAINST CTers. If the Government planned it and carried it out, they would make a CLEAR link to Osama in order to strengthen their story.
Are they the smartest Government ever, or totally, totally complacent? We return to: We would have got away with it if it weren't for you meddling teenagers!
Monday, January 8, 2007
Anyway, the third paragraph was interesting to me, and should prove interesting to anyone who thinks that personal effects cannot survive plane crashes (passports, clothing etc). Anyway, here is a clip for you to read:
| In it were colour photographs of everything found at the crash site that was not clearly linked to a particular person |
Jeremy's wedding ring didn't survive, but 70 other pieces of jewellery did, along with a bewlidering array of socks, hats, shoes and other items of clothing that somehow made it through the crash and the fire that followed. There were also such things as keys, books and dozens of snapshots of children.
...I came across a pair of black briefs, They were savagely torn and badly discoloured, but there was no doubt they were Jeremy's.
...Near the end, at the bottom of one page, was an American Express personal organizer, its cover burned away.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
|Truthmove.org - 11/18/06 - Ground Zero Our local, incredibly committed 9/11 truth debunker (Mark Roberts/Gravy) faces random citizens who don't buy his intentions. Sure, not all of our facts are equally relevant, or sourced. But our intentions are genuine. Mark says he's about the facts, but people see through that and recognize what he is trying to do.|
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Conspiracy Theorist: You said REAL scientists haven't spoken up. I explained that REAL scientists HAVE spoken up. I supplied proof.
Ronald Wieck: And that "proof" was what, exactly? Dental engineer Judy Wood's Keebler elves and her Star Wars laser beams? Steven Jones, the man who wrote about Jesus's visit to North America; the man who assumes that traces of a thermite reaction proves controlled demolition, although he understands nothing about the use of thermite in demolition and his alleged reaction has several far more plausible explanations?
"And because you couldn't rationally counter my proof, you needed to BS your way out by saying the NIST scientists are the only real scientists (or something to that effect.)"
Sorry, but your "scientists" are laughingstocks. Over two hundred researchers contibuted to the NIST report. What errors did they make?
"You can't even address my comments rationally! You're so hysterical that you think the NIST report did not need to analyze the collapses!"
Uh, TEN THOUSAND pages analyzing the collapses and you think they kinda forgot to analyze the collapses. Do you want to rethink this statement?
"You'll do anything to believe the government's fairytale, eh?"
You'll do anything to wave away a mountain of inconvenient evidence. You'll do anything to obscure the FACT that the conspiracy liars have produced ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for their insane and pernicious nonsense.
Incidentally, when Dr. Greening writes a paper or Popular Mechanics publishes an article and a book, they are somehow "the government"? I'm afraid I don't believe you.